I am reasonably good at understanding things. I understood every word, though I barely understood anything he said. That may be due to my deficiencies or a deficiency in Jordan’s ability to communicate succinctly and fluently.
It's a lot of purple prose. Just make a statement and defend it. Politics is addicting because we have lost a deeper meaning of ourselves. There, that's all he had to say.
It's not you. I'm 6 minutes and I don't know if I will continue. Jordan Hill might have really interesting things to say, but he is not communicating them clearly (and I'll never know). He said something like homo-sapiens sapiens haven't adapted to the technological advancements. Where he could have said Humans haven't adapted to the technological advancements.
Konstantin and Francis constantly tried to reel him back so he could explain his ideas in layman's terms. Didn't work. Found his talk extremely fatiguing.
Sorry guys I really struggled to understand the content of this interview. First time I have ever had any difficulties with a Triggernometry podcast. I won't ever down vote the podcast as I know you put a lot of effort into these interviews. Perhaps I have finally lost my mind, if ever I had one. I will try this interview again tomorrow. I'm off to watch Reginald Perrin !
@@WesHampson JH: "I would actually go more along the lines of, I don’t know, Snow skiing at a breakneck speed blind through that environment, With a complete uh and completely inebriated, Something like that, The magnitude of the lift is quite high, Yeah but part of that is say okay, well if that’s the metaphor, stop drinking, sober the fuck up, take off the skis and walk down the goddamn mountain right." I'm listening it's just shit. He sound as clear as Biden.
He's using terms here because they are the "smart words" and not because they're the correct words. There are many simpler terms that are truer to what he's trying to communicate.
Sounds very unacademic and pseudo-scientific to me. I think the drowning effect is intentional, so that you take him seriously. It's like contemporary art : you know it's bullshit, but you can't say it is otherwise you might look stupid : better just say "sure this is very profound ! You have to have a big brain to get what he's saying ! And I'm part of the big brains, boys !". He talks like a charlatan, and the only people who do so are charlatans and incompetents. And if you're on this podcast you can't be a complete incompetent : you either have something to say or a bit of style. So, yeah, I'll put him in the charlatan "I'm so profound" category.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Jordan is being as precise as he can while he builds the foundation of the framework he is using to analyze our current state of affairs. He used slightly removed language as to not compound his framework with inherited meaning or nuance. But this framework is very large and he doesn't really finish describing the foundation of it til about 30 minutes in -- which speaks to one of his major assertions: that everything is connected and it took a lot of desperate disciplines to line up to get us to where we are currently. He continually has to expand his explanations to capture all the different moving parts (which is why he seems to run on) but the point is that he is trying his best to be honest about his perspective without doing us all a disservice by only boiling it down to one or two points. The fact that he gradually increases the complexity of his language farther along he is in laying the foundation of his perspective is actually quite masterful; he uses words at the limit of understanding per the prior context already explained. That is to say, instead of forcing you to catch up to his language he gradually builds up your contextual understanding so he can finally hit with very complex ideas.
The best, smartest communicators make complex ideas simple to understand. It requires a high signal to noise ratio. This excessive jargon does the opposite and comes across as showing off. Maybe the interviewers should interrupt to frame his ideas and clarify where they're going.
@@noone8418 It's not about talking down to people, or dumbing down ideas. The ideas can still be complex, but you have to be able to communicate them succinctly and clearly, so you capture and retain your audience. In my experience, the really big fish have no interest in taking the time to decipher overly dense talks like this, maybe because jargon like this is a red flag about the quality of the ideas. It's a hard skill to develop, but really important for success in any field.
He used one ineffective analogy after another to say basically nothing. He used about 6 analogies to answer a very simple question, and avoided answering it altogether. It was so hard to listen to him.
@@nickmoore5105 I did follow the bit about the change from tv to the web and the need to shift our entire way of relating to the media, but that is as far as I got. Ah well....
I think the fact so many people are complaining indicates he has a problem communicating his ideas to an audience. Many of us can sit through podcasts with complicated ideas. This was a tough one to listen to.
@@shebear7542 maybe look at Marshall McLuhon or Neil Postman ' s written work to get a sense of where he is coming from. Different media alters people in different ways at a central nervous system level that alters orientation, attentional and understanding processes. As you make sense through these processes you may not notice an alteration in your sense making unless you can 'metacognitise' or be able to look at these processes. (Rough summary). Things like how the audience first ran out of the theatre when the lumiere movie of audience train coming towards them was played. People had to learn to over ride the wisdom of running from a real train to not run and sit audience nd watch a image of a train.
This reminded me of: "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power." - Judith Butler, The Guardian's "Worlds Worst Writing" first place, 1999.
This guy really like the sound of his own voice. His constant search for a metaphor is a window into how truly vacuous his mind is. No original thought just vomit re warmed as soup. How’s that for a metaphor
Definition of eloquent from Oxford dictionary: fluent or persuasive in speaking or writing; clearly expressing or indicating something. So, really an epic fail on both fronts for this Hall fellow, I would argue.
I recognize Jordan has valuable ideas, but his communication style is quite frustrating to follow. I think he has a very clear idea in his head for what his jargony terms mean and how his ideas flow from one to the next, but for me at least, those terms introduce lots of friction. He can skate ahead at full speed, but I tripped and faceplanted half a mile back and he didn't look over his shoulder to check if I'm still there with him.
You could try Rebel Wisdom's "War on Sensemaking" series with Daniel Schmachtenberger - he explains this whole way of thinking and communicating. Alternatively Jim Rutt and Brett Weinstein discussing the creation of Game b also frames it very well. Pausing and googling helps too! It's worth it in the end.
He does not have the facility with the spoken word that you hear from Jordan Peterson. But his ideas are worth making the extra mental push to at least try to fully understand.
@@That-Bond-Babe Except that he said he has a coffee in his hot tub and meditates; a clear and simple explanation of an activity not far off having a bath.
This is superb - one of your best interviews yet. I almost didn’t listen as the title makes it sound like it’s all about ‘politics’ but it’s about SO much more. I need a bit of a lie down now just to process it all...
Ok this was just vague word salad. Theres a saying that the more complicated vocabulary, the more it's about masking your deficiencies. This guy really need to simplify and make his arguments and points more concise.
YES! Politics is absolutely an addiction for millions today. It's a recipe for unhappiness and bitterness. I've noticed it in myself. I'm correcting for it. I meditate every day. And my life is improving! I still care about the world and the news of course. But it should never be a considered as a means of attaining happiness. If you want to improve the world, the best way is to work on improving yourself, first and foremost, and never ever stop! And that will improve your relationships with family and friends. And that's the most important thing in life! Quality of life. Family, your local community, and then wider society will improve all by itself. Many people need a shift in perspective, and that begins at home!
It makes you a more bitter, grumpy and prejudiced person. You don’t even notice how you gradually change, you think you’re getting smarter but it’s the opposite really.
This of like stumbling into a discussion between students of Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. You all have some very valid points and the discussion is good to read.
@@Holly5.0 love your reply bro thank you! Yeah I am really working on it pretty much cut out the politics & social media, it makes a massive difference! Honestly it’s media that separates us
I appreciate how much this made me really pay attention and think. This type of dialogue and engagement seems so lost in modern media. Thank you for bringing a light to folks like this.
Thank you Jordan. That was wonderful. I could listen to you all day, but I think I need to start taking those first steps toward a larger sovereignty. ~breath~ feels nice :)
It’s not a small step but a careful process of giving yourself the permission to give and ethical commitment to the world as you watch the skid. I can say to some degree blah blah blah listen to me talk
This isn't word salad, it is intelligible if you make the effort to follow his thought pattern. But you shouldn't. He is purposefully making himself less easy to follow. There's absolutely no reason to use roundabout lingo for some of the things he says. Combined with his smarmy demeanour; seems like an absolutely awful fella to have a beer with.
When I was young, politics was something for socially inept people who had no other outlet to express themselves. It was for kids who needed to fix the world because they couldn't fix themselves. Politicians need to be put back in their box, they've given themselves far too much power.
Sounds like obvious ebb-and-flow civilizational dynamics on the macro- and micro-scale being described in an unstructured, first-year philosophy paper. Not an uninteresting subject, but tedious to listen to...
“If you can do it in a brief and understandable way” this podcast could be another great. As is, this is the first one I’ve bailed on part way through. FF and KK, you rock and have been a great source of entertainment in lockdown. Really appreciate your work, just not this one so much.
Same. I don't know what he is trying to achieve. Perhaps he likes talking like this, and can take it or leave. If his aim is to communicate ideas, he could simplify the sentences without losing meaning.
I recognize he's saying interesting things, and I even understand it sometimes, however, he might want to "endeavor" to use language that's easier to follow so that the half of my brainpower I have to use to make sense of the words he's using could be diverted instead to making sense of what he's saying.
I think Jordan needs to spend time in a classroom lecturing students or have an editor to translate and tidy up his thoughts. The guy is clearly thinking at a high-concept level but is failing to translate much of it into a format that can be communicated to someone who doesn't understand his thought patterns.
It came across as very jump cutty. Much silence from FF and KK as well - just seemed too hard to pin anything done for long enough to actually question it.
This is one of my favorite interviews so far. I agree that it was hard to follow, but it's because Jordan introduced a completely new way of thinking on a scale we (myself at least) are not used to looking at. It's like going from staring at a few pixels to suddenly seeing a panoramic view, but your eyes need time to refocus.
KK and FF need to push back on these monologue interviews. The points are not clear enough. JH brings up skiing drunk then solves it... "I can say with confidence and clarity..." JH really? you can do the former not the latter.
This guy is faking systems theory concepts improvisationally. He brought up Ken Wilber in a collapsed manner. His key issue was interpolation. None of the things he said were properly interpolated. You might just as well have called it New Age philosophy.
Guys, I love you to death, but this was the first time I had to actually MAKE myself sit through an interview of yours. I barely made it till the end. It truly is an art to be able to convey your thoughts in an attractive, concise manner that captures peoples' attention, and Jordan should really work on that. I think we all (him included, once) got lost in these detailed explanations. I hope the next one is more interesting. Cheers!
He is talking about very complex ideas. Simplifying it down to easy catch phrases would miss the points. However the comedians do present some simplification along the way.
There is enough attractive, simplified content online for many lifetimes... Whereas the topics covered here are examples of one that should _not_ be dumbed down for easy consumption.
My mother is in a cult and I've been working a lot on accepting that fact and moving on (she doesn't talk to me because of this cult.) My life coach has compared being a cult member to being an alcoholic or drug addict. There are definitely similarities, and I can see this in politics as well.
@@importantjohn that’s the first sign of all cults. In that if your parents don’t agree with your ideology that you must break ALL contact with them. Look at every cult in existence, they have this same code
@@billsimms2511 Very true. Cults create black and white thinking and an us versus them mentality, it is a key element in mind control using the BITE model.
It can be like a hamster wheel. The more you obsess about politics the less effective your politics may actually become. Because 90% of it is unconscious and unreflective.
Long-term student/practitioner of Theory U here! I am really excited, KK and FF, that you decided to have this discussion. I think Jordan is providing a pattern-interrupt opportunity for all of us. What he is pointing to isn't necessarily easy, but I don't think we can effectively change anything operating in reactivity mode, even though it feels so urgent to act (I certainly feel that way). We need to change the place/mindspace from which we operate.
@@craighart9278 Come on, you're not _that_ thick! I'm guessing it's as straightforward as it sounds, an opportunity to interrupt whichever pattern of your life you think isn't doing you any favours. But yes, the phrase itself does sound like it comes from Beelzebub. Old Jordan Hall used way too many.
This is what Paul McCartney was talking about when he wrote, " Scrambled eggs. Scrambled scrambled scrambled eggs. Scrambled scrambled scrambled eggs. Oh scrambled eggs in scrambled eggs . . . "
I watched this 2 days again and didn’t understand. I thought maybe i was too tired. I watched again today. Skipping bits and then gave up. Still didn’t understand anything. Is it just me? Just sayin’
I’ve been following Jordan for years and yeah he can be pretty wordy at times, but the way he describes things and the depth of his thinking is something you hardly ever come across, so I’m a huge fan.
The title of this has sprung an idea right into my brain! One thing you hear from addicts is "I thought I was in control. I thought I could handle it." I smoked and still use nicotine products, and I have DEFIANTLY said this to justify my choices. So is it as first you take the drug for enjoyment, then lose control, and are then in a cycle of use-justify-use? The loss of control is an attempt to gain it back but the chemical dependence is strong, and it is really just easier to lie to yourself. Thank you for the idea. I will think on this more.
This guy is the antonym of Jordan B. Peterson: while Jordan is effective on bringing the hardest and more difficult themes touching the mind, philosophy, religion, psychology (etc.) down to a comprehensible level for everyone, this guy fails, metaphor after metaphor, to build a momentum of understanding of the whole point he is trying to bring. It doesn't that sometimes he stops, retorts, looks for a better metaphor and loses himself into another parallel (although related) theme. You understand the words, the phrases, some information, some concepts, but like pages of a book that have been turned into pieces: you understand every page, you have an idea of what the book may be about but you never get the book as a complete narrative. Peterson instead is a natural narrator: he knows how to articulate the main concept, give it a beginning, a middle (the knot, the difficulty or problem or conflict of the story) and a possible ending (or several possible endings) BUT not losing the main reason for the whole tale itself (whether it's value, suffering, morality, statistics, biology, gender, etc.). Peterson even puts you in the situation of articulating your own story by giving you the vessel to fill the content, while warning you of some consequences or encouraging you of some positive possible outcomes.
Might I suggest that if this guy wants to be listened to by the mainstream then he has to learn how to communicate without strings of long obscure words. As an example, instead of modality use the word mode. They mean the same thing. Instead of using reification use its meaning - making an abstract idea concrete. Also try not to use levels of abstraction too often. I’m educated at PhD level and found parts difficult to follow due to word selection.
Even though I did semi-well and got 40% of what he was saying, this bloke is as good at being coherent as Russell brand is at not picking up his thesaurus..
I think Russel Brand is the best comparison so far. A case of dressing up their points with big words and complicated sentences to sound more... intelligent? Or cultured. Or something
@@sebastiandangerfield9462 haha I think they have different techniques of scrambling what they trying to say. It's kind of like trying to deepfake an intellectual and either maxing out word variation (brand) or weird metaphors and rambling (this guy). I commend the regular conversation of triggernometry for it's clarity. Strange.
I had the same reaction as everyone else - the lingo was too unnecessarily technical. But then I heard KK advocating for this interview in the following live stream and decided to give it another try. Glad I did!
The problem with producing two interviews a week is that in order to fill the slots you have to get quite a lot of sub-par pseudo intellectuals. Like this one. A lot of hot air, indeed.
Looking at the critical comments is very interesting. Seems like there are loyal followers of Triggernometry criticising. Yet the hosts feel Jordan is a crucial voice- surely that loyalty can translate into investing more time into 'misunderstood' rhetoric? When I first came across Jordan, I thought he was douchey. But then I dived in further through his Rebel Wisdon content, then I realised he has a viewpoint and ability to see widely- it's one crucial piece of the puzzle we need (he's not the saviour, say how some think Peterson is). I'd recommend his medium posts; this one is probably relevant to this audience? medium.com/deep-code/situational-assessment-right-now-7d9856b562f5 Or this Rebel Wisdom video: th-cam.com/video/_j3cCrpXERg/w-d-xo.html
@@Dilmahkana - I understand and appreciate your point. But stick to mine nevertheless. It may be a question of generation and of cultural environment. I hear no deep thinking here, but a lot of obvious being stated, with quite a bit of personal development. So, for people like me, this voice is not crucial at all. Neither is Peterson, by the way, since you mention him. Just realise both these men are totally unknown outside of the Anglo-Saxon sphere. Try a search in German, French or Italian on the two names, for instance, if you want to be convinced. But then, I may just forget to take with the necessary grain of salt the recurring introduction of the shows about brilliant guests or fascinating people…
@@eliane2743 cultural environment undoubtedly has something to do with it in any case. German and French people may still read about their great philosophers for all I know-which would be good. I could probably concede the framing of this video and the questions in it provide few new ideas (i.e Jordan: the world is fucked and we need to get better). However, he goes much more into the structure of modern cultural phenomena (media landscape, the structure of post-war Western society, information warfare) and the evolution of culture (culture war stuff, civilisation development, history through systems theory). For me he has been very crucial in seeing the problems of the world at a higher level. And I don't know many who are doing that or can do that. Sorry if I strayed off point.
For people who feel that he's saying something worth listening to but are finding him difficult to follow: I feel you. I've been listening to him for a while now and find that keeping up with his train of thought demands maximum focus and avoiding multitasking. However, the more I've learned to understand how he thinks, the more value I've found in it. He's coherent but speaks and thinks quite idiosyncratically and this takes time to get used to. I find his writing considerably easier to follow than his speech - his Medium blog is worth checking out. Reading him also makes it easier to follow his speech. I'm not especially recommending him to people who don't feel any attraction to him from listening to this interview - he's quite an acquired taste. However, for those who feel curious after hearing this interview, I recommend giving yourself time to get to know the way Jordan's brain works. For me, it's been quite eye opening.
reminds me a lot of jordan b. peterson, in that he uses complicated language to describe concepts that could probably be explained using simpler terms. interesting guy.
I understand what you mean about Peterson but eventually I get what he means. And underneath the verbiage JBP communicates a connection with his audience, his passion for humanity. This guy is off on a purely philosophical planet.
@@celesteciaccia7368 eventually i get both, and i like them both. and this guy even seems to think the way i think. something about him. the concepts he describes and the analogies he uses, very close to how i think.
@@goJohnHenry I agree. I never feel like Jordan Peterson is actually trying to sound intelligent, he just is, whereas this interview sounded very much like someone choosing their vocabulary carefully to sound intelligent (not to make their point in the best way)
I've been trying to follow this guy's train of thought for years now and I still glaze over and tune out after 5 minutes. I suspect that with a lot of effort a few concise sentences could be formulated that summarize what we already know is an extremely complicated set of interacting factors.
The old timers had it right. Dont talk about politics or religion. With internet that's all people do. Just listen to the lessons of the past that already figured out problems we are dealing with again. People need to focus on shared interests.
This kind of discussion can be imaginative (perhaps inspiring), but as far as I can tell, futurists are basically mystics. There's just nothing grounded in what this guy is saying.
Agreed. There's a difference between sounding smart and saying smart things. One might say these are in fact opposite things, as smart thought helps you understand the world and therefore has to be understandable itself. But I feel lots of people here believe the charlatan.
@@primeryaiIol This guy's an obvious crank. There's no substance here to understand at all. Listen more closely, stop projecting and you'll see that too. BTW, don't be so snide in the future when you don't know what you're talking about. It's just embarrassing.
My fIrst impression is it's Otto the bus driver on speed overthinking things, but I'll persevere with it and probably listen to it again when I can give it more time.
This made me think of the old quote: "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" Don't get me wrong - obviously a clever guy, but not a talk for the layman.
This talk very much resonates with me. In my time in Canadian federal politics I saw how the excessive part of the partisan side of the system had more in common with fantasy sports leagues, whereas if it's focused and thought out it can complement good governance. Unfortunately, social media seems to amplify the former over the latter.
Okay, here is one excerpt: Governance had become tv native meaning both the talk and techniques, the understanding, the habits, the uncommon instinct and also the possibilities and capacities of what actually could be effectively managed and steered through this particular modality and an audience prepared, for example I remember very clearly as an 8 or 10 year old..... I’ve a masters in molecular biology and a minors in psychology and chemistry. I’m accustomed to academic “ speak”, but I have no idea what this dude is talking about.
Government learned how to use the medium of television to control the population and set the allowable talking points. Get it? Every new medium takes some getting used to.
First up I love what you guys are doing, trying to bring some nuance and an overview to the state of current affairs. However, I couldnt understand this guy.... Obviously he is very smart (maybe that's why I couldn't understand him) but I think there is a difference between being smart and being a good communicator. Anyways that's my 10 cents.... Keep up the good work guys!
This was interesting, but for me, one of the least accessible discussions I've seen on the channel. Really struggled to keep up with Jordan's thought train through most of it. Not sure my brain has taken anything in, which is disappointing as it seemed as though it was important. Maybe not just me as Jordan completely lost his own train of thought at least once and had to ask you guys what he was getting to! :)
Usually I enjoy these insightful interviews but ten minutes in I was thinking “does this guy know how to convey a single idea simply?” Or perhaps I should say does this thought-body locus of information know how to impart meaningful information into the person sphere?
@@nickmoore5105 Because the dysfunctional human ego is the foundational cause of all the problems he identifies. Until our species recognizes and corrects the insecurities that cause greed/decadence, and the need for attention from strangers, we will continue these dysfunctional cyclical paradigms in our societies.
@@tomj2810 That's an even more ridiculous reason. So he buys into the nonsense that women have been oppressed by traditionally taking their husbands surname.
@@kenhiett5266 not necessarily. But what about what you said originally "Jordan Greenhall changed his name to Hall, for his big popularity explosion on channels such as these. I wish I was kidding" How do you know this?
I hope your next guest speaks English. Clever people communicate complex ideas in a way the uninitiated can understand. People desperate to sound cleverer than they actually are express them selves in as complicated fashion as possible. This man falls into the second category.
Pure progressive ideology at its finest. "Yeah... We can fix the world, but we might just have to tear it down first. And you, you have to realize you are part of the problem, so you will have to put aside your believes, social and cultural values and any other preconceived Ideals or ideology and begin to adapt yourself to the emerging (progressive) reality."
And everyone is an activist now. It's not enough to be a fireman or a librarian or a museum curator. Kids are taught to be activists the minute they go to school. It's a recipe for misery.
@@Thavar91 well the point I got was people won’t act responsibly unless there is a repercussions for not doing so. And that the description was an example of a method to add some. Obviously no analogy is perfect, but the idea of anything remotely close to that just sounds dystopian as hell.
![일상 속 기분 좋음 [Proto disco meme]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DwmEIaZ7XGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! triggernometry.locals.com/
Honestly, politics IS an addiction. I realized it in myself and cut down how much I watch and my productivity skyrocketed.
And it’s also just a show for people, so completely useless to waste your time with.
Me too. Even though it’s under the guise of “being informed.”
Are you Boris Johnson?
Politics is not an addiction, only people who have very little to nothing else going on in their lives need politics to give their lives meaning.
@@adebayoonakoya6243 Yet here you are, discussing politics on a channel that primarily discusses politics :)
This is absolutely fascinating. Am going to have to watch it a few times to really understand it. You did good guys, real good! Absolutely loved it. ❤
I am reasonably good at understanding things. I understood every word, though I barely understood anything he said. That may be due to my deficiencies or a deficiency in Jordan’s ability to communicate succinctly and fluently.
It’s not you. The guy just rambles on without saying anything.
I agree - I understand what each word means, but I don’t understand the point he’s making
It's a lot of purple prose. Just make a statement and defend it.
Politics is addicting because we have lost a deeper meaning of ourselves. There, that's all he had to say.
It's not you. I'm 6 minutes and I don't know if I will continue.
Jordan Hill might have really interesting things to say, but he is not communicating them clearly (and I'll never know).
He said something like homo-sapiens sapiens haven't adapted to the technological advancements.
Where he could have said Humans haven't adapted to the technological advancements.
Konstantin and Francis constantly tried to reel him back so he could explain his ideas in layman's terms. Didn't work. Found his talk extremely fatiguing.
Sorry guys I really struggled to understand the content of this interview. First time I have ever had any difficulties with a Triggernometry podcast. I won't ever down vote the podcast as I know you put a lot of effort into these interviews.
Perhaps I have finally lost my mind, if ever I had one. I will try this interview again tomorrow. I'm off to watch Reginald Perrin !
I felt the same.
I didn't get where I am today without watching Reginald Perrin.
Unfortunately one of the worst ones yet, not clear, a word soup. You have to call this one a miss.
You guys aren’t listening closely.
@@WesHampson
JH: "I would actually go more along the lines of,
I don’t know,
Snow skiing at a breakneck speed blind through that environment,
With a complete uh and completely inebriated,
Something like that,
The magnitude of the lift is quite high,
Yeah but part of that is say okay,
well if that’s the metaphor,
stop drinking, sober the fuck up, take off the skis and walk down the goddamn mountain right."
I'm listening it's just shit.
He sound as clear as Biden.
Ideas drowned by academic phrasing and vocabulary.
He's using terms here because they are the "smart words" and not because they're the correct words. There are many simpler terms that are truer to what he's trying to communicate.
Sounds very unacademic and pseudo-scientific to me. I think the drowning effect is intentional, so that you take him seriously. It's like contemporary art : you know it's bullshit, but you can't say it is otherwise you might look stupid : better just say "sure this is very profound ! You have to have a big brain to get what he's saying ! And I'm part of the big brains, boys !".
He talks like a charlatan, and the only people who do so are charlatans and incompetents. And if you're on this podcast you can't be a complete incompetent : you either have something to say or a bit of style. So, yeah, I'll put him in the charlatan "I'm so profound" category.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Jordan is being as precise as he can while he builds the foundation of the framework he is using to analyze our current state of affairs. He used slightly removed language as to not compound his framework with inherited meaning or nuance. But this framework is very large and he doesn't really finish describing the foundation of it til about 30 minutes in -- which speaks to one of his major assertions: that everything is connected and it took a lot of desperate disciplines to line up to get us to where we are currently.
He continually has to expand his explanations to capture all the different moving parts (which is why he seems to run on) but the point is that he is trying his best to be honest about his perspective without doing us all a disservice by only boiling it down to one or two points. The fact that he gradually increases the complexity of his language farther along he is in laying the foundation of his perspective is actually quite masterful; he uses words at the limit of understanding per the prior context already explained. That is to say, instead of forcing you to catch up to his language he gradually builds up your contextual understanding so he can finally hit with very complex ideas.
The best, smartest communicators make complex ideas simple to understand. It requires a high signal to noise ratio. This excessive jargon does the opposite and comes across as showing off. Maybe the interviewers should interrupt to frame his ideas and clarify where they're going.
Maybe instead of talking down to dumb people, dumb people should learn to be smarter.
@@noone8418 in my experience its often the case that the cleverest people are the best communicators. Richard Feynman is the perfect example.
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein.
@@noone8418 It's not about talking down to people, or dumbing down ideas. The ideas can still be complex, but you have to be able to communicate them succinctly and clearly, so you capture and retain your audience.
In my experience, the really big fish have no interest in taking the time to decipher overly dense talks like this, maybe because jargon like this is a red flag about the quality of the ideas. It's a hard skill to develop, but really important for success in any field.
He used one ineffective analogy after another to say basically nothing. He used about 6 analogies to answer a very simple question, and avoided answering it altogether. It was so hard to listen to him.
No one loves Jordan Hall the way Jordan Hall loves Jordan Hall.
Either brilliant and way beyond me , or meaningless and in danger of getting lost up its own backside. Not sure which.
I’d suggest option 3, brilliant and in your grasp if you apply yourself.
@@nickmoore5105 I did follow the bit about the change from tv to the web and the need to shift our entire way of relating to the media, but that is as far as I got. Ah well....
I think the fact so many people are complaining indicates he has a problem communicating his ideas to an audience. Many of us can sit through podcasts with complicated ideas. This was a tough one to listen to.
@@shebear7542 maybe look at Marshall McLuhon or Neil Postman ' s written work to get a sense of where he is coming from.
Different media alters people in different ways at a central nervous system level that alters orientation, attentional and understanding processes. As you make sense through these processes you may not notice an alteration in your sense making unless you can 'metacognitise' or be able to look at these processes. (Rough summary). Things like how the audience first ran out of the theatre when the lumiere movie of audience train coming towards them was played. People had to learn to over ride the wisdom of running from a real train to not run and sit audience nd watch a image of a train.
All of the above
This reminded me of: "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power." - Judith Butler, The Guardian's "Worlds Worst Writing" first place, 1999.
This guy really like the sound of his own voice. His constant search for a metaphor is a window into how truly vacuous his mind is. No original thought just vomit re warmed as soup. How’s that for a metaphor
This speaker is very eloquent but I'm not sure he's made any actual point.
Yes. All talk, empty content. Master sophist.
Definition of eloquent from Oxford dictionary: fluent or persuasive in speaking or writing;
clearly expressing or indicating something.
So, really an epic fail on both fronts for this Hall fellow, I would argue.
I recognize Jordan has valuable ideas, but his communication style is quite frustrating to follow. I think he has a very clear idea in his head for what his jargony terms mean and how his ideas flow from one to the next, but for me at least, those terms introduce lots of friction. He can skate ahead at full speed, but I tripped and faceplanted half a mile back and he didn't look over his shoulder to check if I'm still there with him.
You could try Rebel Wisdom's "War on Sensemaking" series with Daniel Schmachtenberger - he explains this whole way of thinking and communicating. Alternatively Jim Rutt and Brett Weinstein discussing the creation of Game b also frames it very well. Pausing and googling helps too! It's worth it in the end.
He does not have the facility with the spoken word that you hear from Jordan Peterson. But his ideas are worth making the extra mental push to at least try to fully understand.
Superfluous pretentious diction, if you will.
@@That-Bond-Babe To what degree does a concept have to be reducible in order for it to be worthwhile in your estimation?
@@That-Bond-Babe Except that he said he has a coffee in his hot tub and meditates; a clear and simple explanation of an activity not far off having a bath.
This is superb - one of your best interviews yet. I almost didn’t listen as the title makes it sound like it’s all about ‘politics’ but it’s about SO much more. I need a bit of a lie down now just to process it all...
Go to John Verveakes channel
Ok this was just vague word salad. Theres a saying that the more complicated vocabulary, the more it's about masking your deficiencies. This guy really need to simplify and make his arguments and points more concise.
Mind comprehensively blown - I'm going to have to watch this a few times to get my head round it.
Thank you more than I can say.
☝️😎
I understood every word, I swear. I'm a smarty pants too
I understood every word too. Just not sure if they were all joined together or separate.
YES! Politics is absolutely an addiction for millions today. It's a recipe for unhappiness and bitterness. I've noticed it in myself. I'm correcting for it. I meditate every day. And my life is improving! I still care about the world and the news of course. But it should never be a considered as a means of attaining happiness. If you want to improve the world, the best way is to work on improving yourself, first and foremost, and never ever stop! And that will improve your relationships with family and friends. And that's the most important thing in life! Quality of life. Family, your local community, and then wider society will improve all by itself. Many people need a shift in perspective, and that begins at home!
It makes you a more bitter, grumpy and prejudiced person. You don’t even notice how you gradually change, you think you’re getting smarter but it’s the opposite really.
@@LovelyDay11 100% I have seen how it has affected my mood & it’s sad to say but has definitely made me more prejudice/Racist
This of like stumbling into a discussion between students of Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. You all have some very valid points and the discussion is good to read.
@@Holly5.0 love your reply bro thank you! Yeah I am really working on it pretty much cut out the politics & social media, it makes a massive difference! Honestly it’s media that separates us
Absolutely, I need to detox
This guy is either gonna be hugely influential in about 30 years time, or else he next Unabomber...
Seeing how he changed his name from Greenhall to Hall in anticipation of becoming a well known figure, I'm pretty confident he's the latter.
he has the beard for it.
@@kenhiett5266 It's worse. His name was Hall, he changed it to Greenhall. Then back.
@@jesperburns went through his 'green' period. Happens to everyone my man.
I appreciate how much this made me really pay attention and think. This type of dialogue and engagement seems so lost in modern media. Thank you for bringing a light to folks like this.
Thank you Jordan. That was wonderful. I could listen to you all day, but I think I need to start taking those first steps toward a larger sovereignty. ~breath~ feels nice :)
One of my favorite episodes! Thanks for introducing me to Jordan!
Don’t like this guy. Something inauthentic about him. Konstantin didn’t seem impressed either. His word salad was distracting.
Hey Jordan, why did the chicken cross the road?
*Insert two hour answer that means "to get to the other side"*
If Jordan was to say it, "What were the internal motivations of the poultry egg producer traverse the temporal highways in this mind space?"
It’s not a small step but a careful process of giving yourself the permission to give and ethical commitment to the world as you watch the skid. I can say to some degree blah blah blah listen to me talk
Sorry lads this was so boring.....
The lads weren’t saying much.
Maybe they agree
It really looked that way
This isn't word salad, it is intelligible if you make the effort to follow his thought pattern. But you shouldn't.
He is purposefully making himself less easy to follow. There's absolutely no reason to use roundabout lingo for some of the things he says.
Combined with his smarmy demeanour; seems like an absolutely awful fella to have a beer with.
Politics is indeed an addiction. I hate the fact that it’s everywhere now. Younger people seem to be obsessed with it
When I was young, politics was something for socially inept people who had no other outlet to express themselves. It was for kids who needed to fix the world because they couldn't fix themselves. Politicians need to be put back in their box, they've given themselves far too much power.
Sounds like obvious ebb-and-flow civilizational dynamics on the macro- and micro-scale being described in an unstructured, first-year philosophy paper. Not an uninteresting subject, but tedious to listen to...
Exhausting listening.
“If you can do it in a brief and understandable way” this podcast could be another great. As is, this is the first one I’ve bailed on part way through.
FF and KK, you rock and have been a great source of entertainment in lockdown. Really appreciate your work, just not this one so much.
This might not fall under "entertainment"
I couldn’t listen to this world salad.
Back to Sam Harris you go
He lost me after his answer to the their first question. Could not follow him at all. And I am not a stupid person.
Go to John Verveakes channel a
; We may not be stupid but are we wise?
Same. I don't know what he is trying to achieve. Perhaps he likes talking like this, and can take it or leave.
If his aim is to communicate ideas, he could simplify the sentences without losing meaning.
I recognize he's saying interesting things, and I even understand it sometimes, however, he might want to "endeavor" to use language that's easier to follow so that the half of my brainpower I have to use to make sense of the words he's using could be diverted instead to making sense of what he's saying.
Clear and concise, 100% agree with you.
I think Jordan needs to spend time in a classroom lecturing students or have an editor to translate and tidy up his thoughts.
The guy is clearly thinking at a high-concept level but is failing to translate much of it into a format that can be communicated to someone who doesn't understand his thought patterns.
It came across as very jump cutty.
Much silence from FF and KK as well - just seemed too hard to pin anything done for long enough to actually question it.
What he said
Is this guy the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard? 😂😂. You guys should have ripped the Emperor’s Clothes off this guy 😂😂. What an effing fool.
Wow! Does this guy *_want_* to be understood?
This is one of my favorite interviews so far. I agree that it was hard to follow, but it's because Jordan introduced a completely new way of thinking on a scale we (myself at least) are not used to looking at. It's like going from staring at a few pixels to suddenly seeing a panoramic view, but your eyes need time to refocus.
Agreed. There's a lot of substance here. You have to pay close attention though
*Modulate your attention. It’s a valuable resource.*
KK and FF need to push back on these monologue interviews. The points are not clear enough. JH brings up skiing drunk then solves it... "I can say with confidence and clarity..." JH really? you can do the former not the latter.
Totally, there are plenty of channels like this I can watch, I come to this one for a bit of bants in the interviews to keep them interesting.
Wow. Jordan Hall on Triggernometry?! What a very unexpected but pleasant surprise.
Really miss the first usual question
Who are you and your journey that ended you up in this chair
This guy is faking systems theory concepts improvisationally. He brought up Ken Wilber in a collapsed manner. His key issue was interpolation. None of the things he said were properly interpolated. You might just as well have called it New Age philosophy.
Guys, I love you to death, but this was the first time I had to actually MAKE myself sit through an interview of yours. I barely made it till the end. It truly is an art to be able to convey your thoughts in an attractive, concise manner that captures peoples' attention, and Jordan should really work on that. I think we all (him included, once) got lost in these detailed explanations. I hope the next one is more interesting. Cheers!
He is talking about very complex ideas. Simplifying it down to easy catch phrases would miss the points. However the comedians do present some simplification along the way.
There is enough attractive, simplified content online for many lifetimes... Whereas the topics covered here are examples of one that should _not_ be dumbed down for easy consumption.
I get it but my head is spinning and I’m tuning out. This ones a flop. Lol.
My mother is in a cult and I've been working a lot on accepting that fact and moving on (she doesn't talk to me because of this cult.) My life coach has compared being a cult member to being an alcoholic or drug addict. There are definitely similarities, and I can see this in politics as well.
What type of cult requires you not to speak to your children?
@@importantjohn that’s the first sign of all cults. In that if your parents don’t agree with your ideology that you must break ALL contact with them. Look at every cult in existence, they have this same code
@@importantjohn Many cults require this, Mormons and Scientologists to name a few, and in my case, the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
@@billsimms2511 Very true. Cults create black and white thinking and an us versus them mentality, it is a key element in mind control using the BITE model.
@@merrittceleste I thought JW and Mormons were all about the importance of family?
It can be like a hamster wheel. The more you obsess about politics the less effective your politics may actually become. Because 90% of it is unconscious and unreflective.
Long-term student/practitioner of Theory U here! I am really excited, KK and FF, that you decided to have this discussion. I think Jordan is providing a pattern-interrupt opportunity for all of us. What he is pointing to isn't necessarily easy, but I don't think we can effectively change anything operating in reactivity mode, even though it feels so urgent to act (I certainly feel that way). We need to change the place/mindspace from which we operate.
"a pattern-interrupt opportunity"
?????
Please, no need to answer I've had enough for today. I feel thick 😔
@@craighart9278 Come on, you're not _that_ thick! I'm guessing it's as straightforward as it sounds, an opportunity to interrupt whichever pattern of your life you think isn't doing you any favours. But yes, the phrase itself does sound like it comes from Beelzebub. Old Jordan Hall used way too many.
@@blackmore4 Yeah, I did figure it out but I have to say I've never heard it before in my life.
Agree, that was my whole problem with the interview.
gave it 32 mins then pissed off to Get Off My Lawn
This is what Paul McCartney was talking about when he wrote, " Scrambled eggs. Scrambled scrambled scrambled eggs. Scrambled scrambled scrambled eggs. Oh scrambled eggs in scrambled eggs . . . "
I have never seen Francis and Konstantin so quite during an interview.
Seemingly mostly from bewilderment.
You can't really blame them. There was so much in that interview.
Who is this guy again? Pass
I watched this 2 days again and didn’t understand. I thought maybe i was too tired.
I watched again today. Skipping bits and then gave up.
Still didn’t understand anything.
Is it just me?
Just sayin’
B I G W O R D S
I’ve been following Jordan for years and yeah he can be pretty wordy at times, but the way he describes things and the depth of his thinking is something you hardly ever come across, so I’m a huge fan.
“Who do I love that I am not paying attention to?”Great way to end the interview.
The title of this has sprung an idea right into my brain! One thing you hear from addicts is "I thought I was in control. I thought I could handle it." I smoked and still use nicotine products, and I have DEFIANTLY said this to justify my choices. So is it as first you take the drug for enjoyment, then lose control, and are then in a cycle of use-justify-use? The loss of control is an attempt to gain it back but the chemical dependence is strong, and it is really just easier to lie to yourself. Thank you for the idea. I will think on this more.
What - in the nicest possible way - the fuck is this guy saying
This guy is the antonym of Jordan B. Peterson: while Jordan is effective on bringing the hardest and more difficult themes touching the mind, philosophy, religion, psychology (etc.) down to a comprehensible level for everyone, this guy fails, metaphor after metaphor, to build a momentum of understanding of the whole point he is trying to bring.
It doesn't that sometimes he stops, retorts, looks for a better metaphor and loses himself into another parallel (although related) theme. You understand the words, the phrases, some information, some concepts, but like pages of a book that have been turned into pieces: you understand every page, you have an idea of what the book may be about but you never get the book as a complete narrative.
Peterson instead is a natural narrator: he knows how to articulate the main concept, give it a beginning, a middle (the knot, the difficulty or problem or conflict of the story) and a possible ending (or several possible endings) BUT not losing the main reason for the whole tale itself (whether it's value, suffering, morality, statistics, biology, gender, etc.). Peterson even puts you in the situation of articulating your own story by giving you the vessel to fill the content, while warning you of some consequences or encouraging you of some positive possible outcomes.
Anybody think the lads are slightly lost?
Might I suggest that if this guy wants to be listened to by the mainstream then he has to learn how to communicate without strings of long obscure words. As an example, instead of modality use the word mode. They mean the same thing. Instead of using reification use its meaning - making an abstract idea concrete. Also try not to use levels of abstraction too often. I’m educated at PhD level and found parts difficult to follow due to word selection.
Follow his logos not his words
came here to type this, i believe his framework of thought is very much spot on, but he fails to use accessible language to do so.
Even though I did semi-well and got 40% of what he was saying, this bloke is as good at being coherent as Russell brand is at not picking up his thesaurus..
I think Russel Brand is the best comparison so far. A case of dressing up their points with big words and complicated sentences to sound more... intelligent? Or cultured. Or something
@@sebastiandangerfield9462 haha I think they have different techniques of scrambling what they trying to say. It's kind of like trying to deepfake an intellectual and either maxing out word variation (brand) or weird metaphors and rambling (this guy). I commend the regular conversation of triggernometry for it's clarity. Strange.
I had the same reaction as everyone else - the lingo was too unnecessarily technical. But then I heard KK advocating for this interview in the following live stream and decided to give it another try. Glad I did!
This dude is a absolute weapon! 🤯
The problem with producing two interviews a week is that in order to fill the slots you have to get quite a lot of sub-par pseudo intellectuals. Like this one.
A lot of hot air, indeed.
Looking at the critical comments is very interesting. Seems like there are loyal followers of Triggernometry criticising. Yet the hosts feel Jordan is a crucial voice- surely that loyalty can translate into investing more time into 'misunderstood' rhetoric?
When I first came across Jordan, I thought he was douchey. But then I dived in further through his Rebel Wisdon content, then I realised he has a viewpoint and ability to see widely- it's one crucial piece of the puzzle we need (he's not the saviour, say how some think Peterson is).
I'd recommend his medium posts; this one is probably relevant to this audience?
medium.com/deep-code/situational-assessment-right-now-7d9856b562f5
Or this Rebel Wisdom video:
th-cam.com/video/_j3cCrpXERg/w-d-xo.html
@@Dilmahkana - I understand and appreciate your point. But stick to mine nevertheless. It may be a question of generation and of cultural environment. I hear no deep thinking here, but a lot of obvious being stated, with quite a bit of personal development.
So, for people like me, this voice is not crucial at all. Neither is Peterson, by the way, since you mention him. Just realise both these men are totally unknown outside of the Anglo-Saxon sphere. Try a search in German, French or Italian on the two names, for instance, if you want to be convinced.
But then, I may just forget to take with the necessary grain of salt the recurring introduction of the shows about brilliant guests or fascinating people…
@@eliane2743 cultural environment undoubtedly has something to do with it in any case. German and French people may still read about their great philosophers for all I know-which would be good.
I could probably concede the framing of this video and the questions in it provide few new ideas (i.e Jordan: the world is fucked and we need to get better). However, he goes much more into the structure of modern cultural phenomena (media landscape, the structure of post-war Western society, information warfare) and the evolution of culture (culture war stuff, civilisation development, history through systems theory). For me he has been very crucial in seeing the problems of the world at a higher level. And I don't know many who are doing that or can do that.
Sorry if I strayed off point.
For people who feel that he's saying something worth listening to but are finding him difficult to follow: I feel you. I've been listening to him for a while now and find that keeping up with his train of thought demands maximum focus and avoiding multitasking. However, the more I've learned to understand how he thinks, the more value I've found in it. He's coherent but speaks and thinks quite idiosyncratically and this takes time to get used to.
I find his writing considerably easier to follow than his speech - his Medium blog is worth checking out. Reading him also makes it easier to follow his speech.
I'm not especially recommending him to people who don't feel any attraction to him from listening to this interview - he's quite an acquired taste. However, for those who feel curious after hearing this interview, I recommend giving yourself time to get to know the way Jordan's brain works. For me, it's been quite eye opening.
reminds me a lot of jordan b. peterson, in that he uses complicated language to describe concepts that could probably be explained using simpler terms. interesting guy.
I understand what you mean about Peterson but eventually I get what he means. And underneath the verbiage JBP communicates a connection with his audience, his passion for humanity. This guy is off on a purely philosophical planet.
@@celesteciaccia7368 eventually i get both, and i like them both. and this guy even seems to think the way i think. something about him. the concepts he describes and the analogies he uses, very close to how i think.
@@goJohnHenry I agree. I never feel like Jordan Peterson is actually trying to sound intelligent, he just is, whereas this interview sounded very much like someone choosing their vocabulary carefully to sound intelligent (not to make their point in the best way)
I've been trying to follow this guy's train of thought for years now and I still glaze over and tune out after 5 minutes. I suspect that with a lot of effort a few concise sentences could be formulated that summarize what we already know is an extremely complicated set of interacting factors.
"Do you guys recall why I ended up going there???" - literally my exact thoughts throughout this video.
The old timers had it right. Dont talk about politics or religion. With internet that's all people do. Just listen to the lessons of the past that already figured out problems we are dealing with again. People need to focus on shared interests.
This kind of discussion can be imaginative (perhaps inspiring), but as far as I can tell, futurists are basically mystics. There's just nothing grounded in what this guy is saying.
Agreed. There's a difference between sounding smart and saying smart things. One might say these are in fact opposite things, as smart thought helps you understand the world and therefore has to be understandable itself. But I feel lots of people here believe the charlatan.
Mysticism is absolutely grounded. If something meaningful to you - start there.
@@benjaminlquinlan8702 Characteristically it's not though. It's more like a publicly shared delusion.
You can also just say you didn't understand what he was saying. That's 100% fine
@@primeryaiIol This guy's an obvious crank. There's no substance here to understand at all. Listen more closely, stop projecting and you'll see that too. BTW, don't be so snide in the future when you don't know what you're talking about. It's just embarrassing.
My fIrst impression is it's Otto the bus driver on speed overthinking things, but I'll persevere with it and probably listen to it again when I can give it more time.
I imagine this is how it would feel to interview The Riddler.
This made me think of the old quote: "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"
Don't get me wrong - obviously a clever guy, but not a talk for the layman.
This interview was very informative. Thanks for taking a chance with it.
I lasted 15 minutes and baled out. didn't understand a word. maybe he should try the UK version of English the next time
My mom is currently having a legitimate nervous breakdown, and much if it has to do with her insatiable appetite for politics and news.
This talk very much resonates with me. In my time in Canadian federal politics I saw how the excessive part of the partisan side of the system had more in common with fantasy sports leagues, whereas if it's focused and thought out it can complement good governance. Unfortunately, social media seems to amplify the former over the latter.
Awesome. One of your top three episodes.
When I listen to JBP I feel smart because I'm surprised I can understand the complex things he's saying. This guy is the opposite.
5:54 He did not take the early warning of our beloved hosts to heart, and it definitely impacted the discussion.
You guys were quieter than normal
Because they couldn’t understand the word salad
We weren't though. The chorus of "whaaat?"s could be heard from space.
Okay, here is one excerpt: Governance had become tv native meaning both the talk and techniques, the understanding, the habits, the uncommon instinct and also the possibilities and capacities of what actually could be effectively managed and steered through this particular modality and an audience prepared, for example I remember very clearly as an 8 or 10 year old.....
I’ve a masters in molecular biology and a minors in psychology and chemistry. I’m accustomed to academic “ speak”, but I have no idea what this dude is talking about.
Government learned how to use the medium of television to control the population and set the allowable talking points. Get it? Every new medium takes some getting used to.
First up I love what you guys are doing, trying to bring some nuance and an overview to the state of current affairs.
However, I couldnt understand this guy.... Obviously he is very smart (maybe that's why I couldn't understand him) but I think there is a difference between being smart and being a good communicator.
Anyways that's my 10 cents.... Keep up the good work guys!
This was interesting, but for me, one of the least accessible discussions I've seen on the channel. Really struggled to keep up with Jordan's thought train through most of it. Not sure my brain has taken anything in, which is disappointing as it seemed as though it was important. Maybe not just me as Jordan completely lost his own train of thought at least once and had to ask you guys what he was getting to! :)
Amazing the wide variety of people and viewpoints you showcase.
Usually I enjoy these insightful interviews but ten minutes in I was thinking “does this guy know how to convey a single idea simply?” Or perhaps I should say does this thought-body locus of information know how to impart meaningful information into the person sphere?
Great guest!
I simultaneously understood everything this man said while also simultaneously not understanding it.
Getting a Continuing Ed degree at Trigger University night school with this one!
Jordan Greenhall changed his name to Hall, for his big popularity explosion on channels such as these. I wish I was kidding.
What is the significance of this?
@@nickmoore5105 Because the dysfunctional human ego is the foundational cause of all the problems he identifies.
Until our species recognizes and corrects the insecurities that cause greed/decadence, and the need for attention from strangers, we will continue these dysfunctional cyclical paradigms in our societies.
Jordan Hall changed his named to greenhall (Green was his wife’s last name) when he got married and when he divorced he switched back to hall
@@tomj2810 That's an even more ridiculous reason. So he buys into the nonsense that women have been oppressed by traditionally taking their husbands surname.
@@kenhiett5266 not necessarily. But what about what you said originally "Jordan Greenhall changed his name to Hall, for his big popularity explosion on channels such as these. I wish I was kidding" How do you know this?
This talk reminded me of one of AOC's word salads. I couldn't tell what he was talking about from one moment to the next. Disappointing.
Jordan with the "Three Body Problem" book in the background 👍🏻
A truly epic conversation, thanks boys!
I hope your next guest speaks English. Clever people communicate complex ideas in a way the uninitiated can understand. People desperate to sound cleverer than they actually are express them selves in as complicated fashion as possible. This man falls into the second category.
Pure progressive ideology at its finest.
"Yeah... We can fix the world, but we might just have to tear it down first. And you, you have to realize you are part of the problem, so you will have to put aside your believes, social and cultural values and any other preconceived Ideals or ideology and begin to adapt yourself to the emerging (progressive) reality."
He is amazing I am in awe of his intelligence !111
Absolutely the best, most inspiring interview you've EVER done 👍🏽
Dang! I got more academic letters after my name than all the ‘alphabet communities’, but this dude been smoking car tyres, fo shizzle! 😂😂😂😘
And everyone is an activist now. It's not enough to be a fireman or a librarian or a museum curator. Kids are taught to be activists the minute they go to school. It's a recipe for misery.
Does that description of the tracked cigarette buds sound terrifying to anyone else? I don’t even smoke or would ever litter.
I thought the same thing. I mean, I understand the point he was making. But, what if a trash can is tipped over by kids or ravens?
@@Thavar91 well the point I got was people won’t act responsibly unless there is a repercussions for not doing so. And that the description was an example of a method to add some. Obviously no analogy is perfect, but the idea of anything remotely close to that just sounds dystopian as hell.
This was a fabulous conversation reminiscent of the other Jordan - Peterson. Good stuff.